Military can set an example

The Boston Herald

BEVERLY BECKHAM

I read a few weeks ago that the hottest home videos these days are the X-rated kind. Absolutely normal Americans are setting up cameras and performing all kinds of sex acts for the not-so-private eye, then selling these feats of fancy so that others can observe and maybe get in the act, too.

There was no hint, of course, that this behavior might be slightly abhorrent. There was not a single syllable of moral wrestling in the piece. It was straight news. This is what people are doing.

You shake your head and think, what next?

But then you forget about it. When it doesn't concern you, you go on to something else.

I might never have thought of this story again, if I hadn't been driving home from the Cape Tuesday and listening to National Public Radio.

The station was airing the Senate Armed Services Committee hearings. America's most decorated military officers have been testifying all week before the committee about what they think would happen to our fighting forces should gays be allowed to serve in the military. Gulf War Commander Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf had already testified that "open homosexuality" would destroy loyalty among troops, undermine the military and lead to upheaval and revolt.

But when I tuned in, the general wasn't speaking. A Marine was, a gay Marine talking about his medals and commendations, his flawless service record and about how three little words - "I am gay" - rendered his life's work worthless in seconds.

He was relieved of his duties for these words. One minute he was the Marine of the Year. The next minute he was being shown the door, no longer good enough to wipe a recruit's boots.

His father won't speak to him. His career is in limbo. He has been looked at and judged and reviled. And for what? Not for something he did, but for who he is.

And who is he? He's the same person the military extolled and his father loved and his fellow Marines respected right up until he said the words, "I am gay."

It struck me as I was listening to this one human being trying to make other human beings understand that sexual orientation has nothing to do with a person's ability to serve his country, that for straight Americans there are totally different rules of behavior. Among heterosexuals, anything goes. People can marry, divorce, remarry again and again, live together, have children together, have children with someone else, lie, cheat, put it all on tape, and even show it to the neighbors. And it doesn't matter. A person's value doesn't go down a bit because these things in the straight community are considered "normal."

But for gays the standards are different. Everything for them is abnormal.

A straight guy goes from girl to girl, and he's a stud.

A gay guy goes from guy to guy, and he's promiscuous.

A straight guy holds his partner's hand, and he's romantic.

A gay guy holds his partner's hand, and he's disgusting.

A straight guy mentions marriage, and he's extolled.

A gay guy mentions marriage, and he is ridiculed.

Isn't this just a little ludicrous? People are people. Straight, gay, black, white, male, female. Shouldn't the rules be the same across the board? Isn't it licentious, irresponsible behavior we should be objecting to? Shouldn't the military be concerned with a person's professionalism and not his proclivity, and address behavior, not biology? Tailhook should be the shame of the Armed Services Committee, not some gay officers with unblemished records.

Incredibly the committee is actually considering a fence sitting policy, which would allow gays to serve as long as they don't tell anyone they're gay.

This is not a solution. It's a sham that would do nothing but perpetuate bigotry and promote deceit.

Examples must come from the top. Soldiers are trained to obey orders. If soldiers can be trained to kill they can certainly be trained to understand differences among people. If they saw their commanding officers giving gay soldiers the respect they give everyone else, and if they were ordered to follow suit, they would.

That's what this one Marine told Congress Tuesday. It would take time, but if leadership set an agenda, with clear rules of conduct, the soldiers in the armed services would eventually come around.